There is an important election coming up in November and I don’t mean the one backed by billions of dollars!

From USPA:

“The USPA Board of Directors is considering the adoption of a new wingsuit instructor rating program. After much discussion, the board decided to seek the opinions of the membership at large by adding a non-binding poll question to the board election ballot that will be disseminated in early November. The new rating system documentation, available here, outlines the details of the instructional rating hierarchy. If the proposal is eventually adopted by the board, the Basic Safety Requirements would require any USPA member making a first wingsuit flight to be trained by a USPA Wingsuit Instructor. Currently, the BSRs require wingsuit jumpers to have at least 200 skydives and a USPA license, but there is no training requirement. The results of the poll will be provided to the board at its March 2013 meeting in Daytona Beach, Florida.”

I would encourage all USPA members to become educated on the proposal and vote.

There is an important election coming up in November and I don’t mean the one backed by billions of dollars!

From USPA:

“The USPA Board of Directors is considering the adoption of a new wingsuit instructor rating program. After much discussion, the board decided to seek the opinions of the membership at large by adding a non-binding poll question to the board election ballot that will be disseminated in early November. The new rating system documentation, available here, outlines the details of the instructional rating hierarchy. If the proposal is eventually adopted by the board, the Basic Safety Requirements would require any USPA member making a first wingsuit flight to be trained by a USPA Wingsuit Instructor. Currently, the BSRs require wingsuit jumpers to have at least 200 skydives and a USPA license, but there is no training requirement. The results of the poll will be provided to the board at its March 2013 meeting in Daytona Beach, Florida.”

I would encourage all USPA members to become educated on the proposal and vote.

No, it doesn't. A wingsuit I/E must hold a WS-I rating, and a WS-I candidate must be evaluated by an I/E.

Neither of these currently exist.

So the initial WS-I and WS-I/Es have to be ANOINTED by some unspecified process.

+1

Anyone want to guess who the Anointed Ones will be?

LOL...

And as floorMonkey says, what about all of those other disciplines that do not have discipline-specific "instructor ratings?"

As soon as an exception is made for wingsuiting, then GUESS WHAT, FOLKS? Any discipline without an equivalent "instructor rating" becomes lawyer food.

Get a clue, people. There is a small minority of people who stand to benefit from this "instructor rating" that is at complete variance with everything USPA has done with regard to sport parachuting instruction during its entire existence.

It rejects the private market solution which has proven to work across all of these other disciplines in favor of "crony capitalism" that forces people to purchase the services of "rated instructors" who are "anointed" (as the good perfesser so elegantly stated) by the association.

Those who intone that we "must" do this because the insurance companies won't insure our airplanes therwise are either misinformed or deliberately misleading the parachuting public.

Bottom line: The insurance companies do NOT care about a USPA-sanctioned rating system; they only want people to quit hitting the tails of the airplanes they insure. Period. Full stop.

And nothing about a wingsuit "instructor rating" speaks directly to that. It's all a smokescreen for a select few who hope to be the "anointed ones" at the expense of the rest of the sport.

Seriously, all of you who are involved in disciplines other than wingsuiting -- guess what's going to happen to the liability environment when there is a USPA-sanctioned, discipline-specific "instructor rating" for one discipline but not the others?

This is Politics and Liability 101, people, and all of you non-wingsuiters who support this "wingsuit instructor rating" are just cutting your own throats.

This whole thing is based upon an utterly bogus premise -- that somehow wingsuiting is "different" and "more dangerous" than other sport parachuting subdisciplines.

It is not, and everyone who says it is does not know the history of parachuting, never mind basic physics.

When people first started doing RW (aka "formation skydiving") it was frequently condemned as dangerous and foolhardy and a threat to jump aircraft.

Ditto for CRW, and when freeflying started, THAT was a threat because the higher speeds were incompatible and therefore dangerous to other freefallers.

Etc etc ad nauseam.

But guess what? We figured it out, didn't we? And all without imposing USPA-mandated sub-discipline "instructor ratings" that make the USPA bureaucracy proliferate and create endless liability permutations of which lawyers can take advantage.

Moreover and in many ways more importantly, the bureaucracy proliferation will literally strangle the sport because, you know, like, dudes and dudettes, why the F did we start skydiving in the first place?

For the freedom of it, the thrill of it, the adventure of it all -- not to be told at each and every incremental step of the way what to do, how to do it, when and where to do it, and only by those "anointed ones" who ride herd on us.

The "revamped" training system is bad enough. Add this ridiculous proposition to it and watch the sport slowly die because you will drive away the very people who are most attracted to its essential nature.

So please, instead of mindlessly accepting the feel-good premise of "standardized instruction," THINK IT THROUGH and consider all of the ramifications.

I have asked several times both on DZ.com and Facebook (since apparently that's the official form of communication now for USPA issues) yet no one seems willing to answer my question.

The way the poll is worded asks the membership if they simply want to adopt a standardized system. However, the underlying tones suggest the question SHOULD ask if the membership wants to adopt the previously submitted standardized system. Is that correct? Is this two separate issues? If someone votes yes for a standard system are they also voting yes for the system already submitted? What if they want to vote yes for a standardized system, but no for the current proposal?

Second question I have asked numerous times across several forums and websites and yet to get an answer: Can someone please tell me how many people currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

I have asked several times both on DZ.com and Facebook (since apparently that's the official form of communication now for USPA issues) yet no one seems willing to answer my question.

The way the poll is worded asks the membership if they simply want to adopt a standardized system. However, the underlying tones suggest the question SHOULD ask if the membership wants to adopt the previously submitted standardized system. Is that correct? Is this two separate issues? If someone votes yes for a standard system are they also voting yes for the system already submitted? What if they want to vote yes for a standardized system, but no for the current proposal?

Second question I have asked numerous times across several forums and websites and yet to get an answer: Can someone please tell me how many people currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

Creating a poll with no bias take a lot of effort and skill.

I asked a BOD member if any professional help had been sought in creating this poll to avoid any bias, and the answer was "NO".

If someone votes yes for a standard system are they also voting yes for the system already submitted? What if they want to vote yes for a standardized system, but no for the current proposal?

Second question I have asked numerous times across several forums and websites and yet to get an answer: Can someone please tell me how many people currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

+1

This is what's known in the business as the "DevilS in the dEtails."

The premise is false, the processes and procedures are corrupt, and the polling methodology wouldn't pass muster in a fifth grade science class.

And the other question not yet answered: Who are the people who currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

If someone votes yes for a standard system are they also voting yes for the system already submitted? What if they want to vote yes for a standardized system, but no for the current proposal?

Second question I have asked numerous times across several forums and websites and yet to get an answer: Can someone please tell me how many people currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

+1

This is what's known in the business as the "DevilS in the dEtails."

The premise is false, the processes and procedures are corrupt, and the polling methodology wouldn't pass muster in a fifth grade science class.

And the other question not yet answered: Who are the people who currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

44

Since I wasn't in the sport then I'll ask:

How is USPA appointing the initial few IE's different from the adoption of the AFF model?

I wasnt around back then either, but there are some major differences. First, AFF is vastly more popular than FFC for obvious reasons. Because of this more AFF classes happen, which means potential instructors can get qualified much more quickly.

I think the point many of us are getting hung up on is the whole 200 FFC requirement. That is by and far completely ridiculous. By having that requirement, this proposal essential ensures the original WSI/E will dominate the WS world for the next decade with all that it entails. If someone wants to be a WSI, they would have no choice but to go through this original WSI/E. Even if an WSI taught a FFC every single weekend of the year, which is completely unreasonable, it would take four years for them to be qualified to be a WSI/E.

I wasnt around back then either, but there are some major differences. First, AFF is vastly more popular than FFC for obvious reasons. Because of this more AFF classes happen, which means potential instructors can get qualified much more quickly.

I think the point many of us are getting hung up on is the whole 200 FFC requirement. That is by and far completely ridiculous. By having that requirement, this proposal essential ensures the original WSI/E will dominate the WS world for the next decade with all that it entails. If someone wants to be a WSI, they would have no choice but to go through this original WSI/E. Even if an WSI taught a FFC every single weekend of the year, which is completely unreasonable, it would take four years for them to be qualified to be a WSI/E.

Then Propose a 50 FFC and 200 WSI Jumps standard, more along the lines of the AFF Program and with reduced WSI jumps to reflect the smaller group of "clients".

But if you all in the community don't do some thing productive, your part of the sport in the USA will be done except for at Tail Gate and "Outlaw" DZ's.

I think the point many of us are getting hung up on is the whole 200 FFC requirement. That is by and far completely ridiculous. By having that requirement, this proposal essential ensures the original WSI/E will dominate the WS world for the next decade with all that it entails. If someone wants to be a WSI, they would have no choice but to go through this original WSI/E. Even if an WSI taught a FFC every single weekend of the year, which is completely unreasonable, it would take four years for them to be qualified to be a WSI/E.

I'm personally opposed to the WS-I rating, but I don't see a problem with the 200 FFC rule. It just means there would only be a couple WS I/Es, which would keep the training fairly standard. As WS gets more popular, FFCs would happen more often, and more WS-Is would be qualified to become I/Es, etc. I personally know at least a half dozen wingsuiters who have taught at least 200 FFCs, so that means there are at least a half dozen potential I/Es out there in the US.

The real issue is: it it necessary? is it feasible? is it desirable? Consider the can of worms, the difficulty coming up with something everyone can agree on, potential costs of implementation, logistical issues getting remote instructors to the I/Es, and of having few to no remote instructors, as well as other things I may not have thought of.

How do people keep missing the fact that THE primary insurer of jump aircraft has said quite simply, wingsuit tail strikes must end now or the insurance will. They MUST see us as a community take SOME corrective action.

If someone votes yes for a standard system are they also voting yes for the system already submitted? What if they want to vote yes for a standardized system, but no for the current proposal?

Second question I have asked numerous times across several forums and websites and yet to get an answer: Can someone please tell me how many people currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

+1

This is what's known in the business as the "DevilS in the dEtails."

The premise is false, the processes and procedures are corrupt, and the polling methodology wouldn't pass muster in a fifth grade science class.

And the other question not yet answered: Who are the people who currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

44

Since I wasn't in the sport then I'll ask:

How is USPA appointing the initial few IE's different from the adoption of the AFF model?

It isn't, and that is a huge part of the problem. If you go here you'll see a section in my post #12 (a variation of my post #7 above) that explains why, and which I summarize here for your convenience:

Quote:

The USPA-anointed AFF IEs became an entrenched bureaucracy so resistant to change that it prevented USPA and even the industry itself from responding correctly and in a timely manner to changes in canopy technology and performance that made obsolete a training regimen predicated on teaching freefall fun skills at the expense of parachuting survival skills.

The AFF system is in fact the primary reason canopy training is so far behind and still hasn't caught up; the bureaucracy created by the anointed ones blocked and continues to block the major system overhaul necessary to reduce open-canopy injuries and fatalities -- i.e., discarding freefall-fun-skills-first-based teaching in favor of first teaching understand-your-gear-learn-how-to-fly-your-parachute.

The same thing lies before us with wingsuiting. The private sector adapted quickly to changes in wingsuit technology and performance that rendered obsolete many of the training techniques and foci of the original methods.

As soon as you "standardize" that training within a bureaucracy, however, adapation ends because, given the essential, change-averse nature of bureaucracy, you also freeze that training at that stage of development it was at when the bureaucracy adopted it.

That happened with AFF and we are still paying the price today in blood, death, and broken bones because its very name points to its fatal flaw: it is accelerated freefall training, not "learn-about-your-gear-and-how-to-fly-your-parachute-first" training.

Heck, when USPA adopted AFF, it wasn't even fully developed in the judgment of its father, Ken Coleman. I know this because we talked about it in person, over beers, way back when he was creating it.

But then he died, and USPA "saluted" him by adopting his program as it was at the time of his death, which even he said was not ready for prime time.

And then we were stuck with that flawed program for 20+ years before the entrenched bureaucracy "changed" it by making it worse because, guess what? Now it's more complicated and more expensive for DZs and their customers, and we're still bouncing people under open, properly functioning canopies at an unacceptably high rate because they still learn freefall fun skills without first focusing on learning how to fly and land their parachutes.

How do people keep missing the fact that THE primary insurer of jump aircraft has said quite simply, wingsuit tail strikes must end now or the insurance will. They MUST see us as a community take SOME corrective action.

The WSI rating is a start.

Or we could do nothing and just let them as the FAA fix it.

Because they WILL.

Wake the fuck up people.

Action to address the tailstrike issue does NOT require the creation of a whole new USPA bureaucracy, setting a bad precedent, and this particular proposal.

If someone votes yes for a standard system are they also voting yes for the system already submitted? What if they want to vote yes for a standardized system, but no for the current proposal?

Second question I have asked numerous times across several forums and websites and yet to get an answer: Can someone please tell me how many people currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

+1

This is what's known in the business as the "DevilS in the dEtails."

The premise is false, the processes and procedures are corrupt, and the polling methodology wouldn't pass muster in a fifth grade science class.

And the other question not yet answered: Who are the people who currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal?

44

Since I wasn't in the sport then I'll ask:

How is USPA appointing the initial few IE's different from the adoption of the AFF model?

It isn't, and that is a huge part of the problem. If you go here you'll see a section in my post #12 (a variation of my post #7 above) that explains why, and which I summarize here for your convenience:

Quote:

The USPA-anointed AFF IEs became an entrenched bureaucracy so resistant to change that it prevented USPA and even the industry itself from responding correctly and in a timely manner to changes in canopy technology and performance that made obsolete a training regimen predicated on teaching freefall fun skills at the expense of parachuting survival skills.

The AFF system is in fact the primary reason canopy training is so far behind and still hasn't caught up; the bureaucracy created by the anointed ones blocked and continues to block the major system overhaul necessary to reduce open-canopy injuries and fatalities -- i.e., discarding freefall-fun-skills-first-based teaching in favor of first teaching understand-your-gear-learn-how-to-fly-your-parachute.

The same thing lies before us with wingsuiting. The private sector adapted quickly to changes in wingsuit technology and performance that rendered obsolete many of the training techniques and foci of the original methods.

As soon as you "standardize" that training within a bureaucracy, however, adapation ends because, given the essential, change-averse nature of bureaucracy, you also freeze that training at that stage of development it was at when the bureaucracy adopted it.

That happened with AFF and we are still paying the price today in blood, death, and broken bones because its very name points to its fatal flaw: it is accelerated freefall training, not "learn-about-your-gear-and-how-to-fly-your-parachute-first" training.

Heck, when USPA adopted AFF, it wasn't even fully developed in the judgment of its father, Ken Coleman. I know this because we talked about it in person, over beers, way back when he was creating it.

But then he died, and USPA "saluted" him by adopting his program as it was at the time of his death, which even he said was not ready for prime time.

And then we were stuck with that flawed program for 20+ years before the entrenched bureaucracy "changed" it by making it worse because, guess what? Now it's more complicated and more expensive for DZs and their customers, and we're still bouncing people under open, properly functioning canopies at an unacceptably high rate because they still learn freefall fun skills without first focusing on learning how to fly and land their parachutes.

I don't think AFF is perfect, and I don't know anyone personally that would say so. I do think that if you go from one dropzone to another and someone has completed up to AFF level X jump, that you can reasonably say that they've demonstrated a certain number of skills. The proposal on the table doesn't go that far, but it would ensure that folks have a very basic toolset from the start. Minus the "tail" that comes along with the rating program, do you believe that is a reasonable goal?

I am not argueing with you at all you are entitled to your opinion and I respect it.

With that said, there are so many points you make and inuendos that are 100% false and strictly assumed. I have read every single word of the original proposal. The roll out process as presented was fair and included 7 I/E's from geographical areas spread out across the United States. There is and never was any one person monopolizing this.

Further-If you think that this was initiated for any financial gain whatsoever to any one person call me on my cell, email me, PM me, or come to my house and I will explain to you how this is not only 100% untrue but it has been verified by myself personally

To prove it I will attach the roll out process but withhold any names associated with the appointments. I will say I have corresponded with all 7 I/E's and they are all committed to a fair and expeditious roll out. If the membership USPA decides to move forward.

Further, it is blatantly obvious where you stand on this topic, and I have no problem with you advocating against standardized training amongst your community. I am aassuming you are an active wingsuiter but I dont know.

Keep in mind the dates are null and void due to the tabling of the entire topic, so disregard the dates. This is also a draft that was presented to us. This is only a draft and is subject to complete sensor by USPA S&T and Full BOD. Lt me say that again this is just the roll out that was presented.

I am not argueing with you at all you are entitled to your opinion and I respect it.

With that said, there are so many points you make and inuendos that are 100% false and strictly assumed. I have read every single word of the original proposal. The roll out process as presented was fair and included 7 I/E's from geographical areas spread out across the United States. There is and never was any one person monopolizing this.

Further-If you think that this was initiated for any financial gain whatsoever to any one person call me on my cell, email me, PM me, or come to my house and I will explain to you how this is not only 100% untrue but it has been verified by myself personally

To prove it I will attach the roll out process but withhold any names associated with the appointments. I will say I have corresponded with all 7 I/E's and they are all committed to a fair and expeditious roll out. If the membership USPA decides to move forward.

Further, it is blatantly obvious where you stand on this topic, and I have no problem with you advocating against standardized training amongst your community. I am aassuming you are an active wingsuiter but I dont know.

Keep in mind the dates are null and void due to the tabling of the entire topic, so disregard the dates. This is also a draft that was presented to us. This is only a draft and is subject to complete sensor by USPA S&T and Full BOD. Lt me say that again this is just the roll out that was presented.

Rich

Rich,

I've never ever not one time said anyone was pushing this for financial gain, have I? Look it up.

The whole thing is BS for a multitude of reasons and apparently you have not been on the BOD long enough to know what a clusterfink you are creating because as soon as one subdiscipline gets a separate rating, all the other peope involved in teaching any of the other subdisciplines become lawyer food. Period. Full stop.

Look it up.

As soon as you add this standalone subdiscipline instructor rating, you create a cascade clusterfink in the entire USPA rating and instructioinal structure because now everything has to be synced up bureaucratically.

Look it up.

You want to know the absolute giveaway word about the coming clusterfink?

The primary proposal pusher's assertion that this proposal "merely" does XYZ. *

"Merely," huh? If this whole thing is about "merely" doing XYZ, then why exactly is there so much pressure and push to do it?

Nothing any of you say about this adds up, to include:

* the 3rd grade science class methodology of your "poll;" and

* your provably false claim that if USPA doesn't take charge of this the insurers will stop insuring our airplanes.

Really, Rich, why are you and the primary proposal pusher waving the insurance thing front and center when it is absolutely false -- when the insurers do not care one way or the other whether USPA regulates wingsuiting or not -- when all the insurers want is for people to quit hitting the tails of the planes they insure?

Why the lies, Rich?

Why?

44

* “'We just don’t need a "program" for this, it’s a lot of change.' Actually, it’s not. It’s merely requiring an FFC that uses the same content found in the current SIM Section 6.9. instruction."

How do people keep missing the fact that THE primary insurer of jump aircraft has said quite simply, wingsuit tail strikes must end now or the insurance will. They MUST see us as a community take SOME corrective action.

It is a false conclusion that the insurance companies will ignore the data and just accept a program and let wingsuiting continue.

The insurance companies do not want to pay for a plane, just because a person has been "instructed" does not mean they will not hit the tail. We have instructed people not to ride a malfunction in, yet people still do it. We have instructed people not to turn low, yet people still do it. We have instructed people not to cutaway at an altitude that is not survivable, yet people still cutaway at 200 feet.

Further, the USPA has a pretty pathetic track record of training advances. Harness hold jumps were banned till someone else did it long enough. Throwouts were banned for students before a few DZO's used them anyway. Wingsuting itself was banned till someone ignored the rule and made a better wingsuit.

If you want a program, create the program privately (Like SDU) and if it is good the insurance company will drop the matter because the issue will go away.

Expecting the USPA to actually create a good program is foolish and expecting that just because the USPA blessed it will make the insurance companies happy is not reality based.

Really, Rich, why are you and the primary proposal pusher waving the insurance thing front and center when it is absolutely false -- when the insurers do not care one way or the other whether USPA regulates wingsuiting or not -- when all the insurers want is for people to quit hitting the tails of the planes they insure?

Why the lies, Rich?

First off, I never waived the insurance letter in front of anyone, in fact I probably read it about the same time you did.

Quote:

* the 3rd grade science class methodology of your "poll;" and

* your provably false claim that if USPA doesn't take charge of this the insurers will stop insuring our airplanes.

3rd grade? There is a question asking all USPA members if they think USPA should adopt a standardized program. I would love to hear how you would ask every member of the USPA a question. Then I can sit back and monday quarterback your efforts.

Do you mind showing me where I made the assertion that insurers will stop insuring planes? I never spoke to Jeff Norris and had no idea that letter even went out.

You are entitled to question. I will answer. In public if you desire. But if you make allegations you should not generalize. Keep in mind for the tenth time Ihave no (ZERO) wingsuit jumps, I find it fascinating but just never had the urge or time. If I decide to make a jump I would want to sit through a FFC taught by an instructor that was being held to some standard other than self annointment. I would consider myself a STUDENT. And if nobody is listening quote me on this, "I do not believe that a skydiver with 200 jumps and jumping a wingsuit for the first time is considered advanced" "I consider you a student the same way I will consider myself a student if I decide to take a FFC".

You are not encouraging healthy debate Robin all you are doing is further dividing the wingsuit community. Since this has started I have spoken to people on both sides of this topic and there is common ground. Your spear throwing will only hinder any constructive dialogue.

I look forward to meeting you one day, I think a face to face conversation would fare much better. I would not call you a liar though even if I disagreed with you. What benefit would I get out of that I am not sure.

Really, Rich, why are you and the primary proposal pusher waving the insurance thing front and center when it is absolutely false -- when the insurers do not care one way or the other whether USPA regulates wingsuiting or not -- when all the insurers want is for people to quit hitting the tails of the planes they insure?

Why the lies, Rich?

First off, I never waived the insurance letter in front of anyone, in fact I probably read it about the same time you did.

Quote:

* the 3rd grade science class methodology of your "poll;" and

* your provably false claim that if USPA doesn't take charge of this the insurers will stop insuring our airplanes.

3rd grade? There is a question asking all USPA members if they think USPA should adopt a standardized program. I would love to hear how you would ask every member of the USPA a question. Then I can sit back and monday quarterback your efforts.

Do you mind showing me where I made the assertion that insurers will stop insuring planes? I never spoke to Jeff Norris and had no idea that letter even went out.

You are entitled to question. I will answer. In public if you desire. But if you make allegations you should not generalize. Keep in mind for the tenth time Ihave no (ZERO) wingsuit jumps, I find it fascinating but just never had the urge or time. If I decide to make a jump I would want to sit through a FFC taught by an instructor that was being held to some standard other than self annointment. I would consider myself a STUDENT. And if nobody is listening quote me on this, "I do not believe that a skydiver with 200 jumps and jumping a wingsuit for the first time is considered advanced" "I consider you a student the same way I will consider myself a student if I decide to take a FFC".

You are not encouraging healthy debate Robin all you are doing is further dividing the wingsuit community. Since this has started I have spoken to people on both sides of this topic and there is common ground. Your spear throwing will only hinder any constructive dialogue.

I look forward to meeting you one day, I think a face to face conversation would fare much better. I would not call you a liar though even if I disagreed with you. What benefit would I get out of that I am not sure.

I apologize for lumping you in with the the primary proposal pusher's assertion that USPA must take this over or aircraft operators will lose their insurance.

I apparently made the mistaken assumption that you knew about this propaganda document, and its false statements related to insurance, and erroneously remembered you as one of the people making the "if we don't do this we lose our insurance" argument.

That assertion is literally the first sentence of the propaganda document and repeated therein -- and then repeated by others.

Again, my bad, and I withdraw any assertion or insinuation that you are in on the deliberate misrepresentation of the insurance issue in this discussion.

Your methodology is 3rd grade because it is a leading question, Rich. The question is the in the same category as "Have you quit beating your wife -- yes or no?"

And its placement in the BOD ballot is 3rd grade methodology too because its placement there elevates it to something as important and pivotal as the BOD election itself.

This is so elementary, my dear Winstock, and your response to me on this point shows that you literally don't have a clue about how illegitimate your poll results will be given the leading question, BOD election-association elements thereof.

Not to mention your "I would love to hear how you would ask every member of the USPA a question" comment. This is more 3rd grade methodology because, Polling 101: You never ask "a question." Period. Full stop.

No legitimate poll ever asks one question. They ask a series of questions designed to get real answers, not lead people in certain directions, and to understand the thinking underlying the answers.

Look it up.

Finally, it's great to hear that the wingsuit community is divided on this; that's the first step toward killing this riduculous proposal once and for all.

Please don't give me all the credit, though; there are several people publicly opposing it, and even more in very senior positions with whom I consult before launching my spears.

Be certain of one thing, however: There can be no healthy debate as long as one side continues to misrepresent the facts and/or use obviously illegitimate poll methodology to support its argument.